1. The Secretary of State is commanded by Parliament in Section 3;HRA 1998 to read the ECA 1972 in its entirety and to then interpret any subordinate Act of Parliament or order of the Prime Minister in a way that does not infringe or interfere with Ms.Millers right to the peaceful enjoyment of her Constitutional Rights as guaranteed by A1P1.

2.The Secretary of State accepted before the High Court that his proposed action of issuing Notice under Article 50 would expose Ms. Miller to a risk of loss of the Constitutional Rights that she now enjoys, an act that is contrary to the peaceful enjoyment of her Constituional Rights.

How could the Secretary of State then claim to have an honest belief that he could do something that Parliament has forbidden him from doing?

That comes from the person who (a) asks how the Secretary of State can have an honest belief in something and yet (b) says he does not possess a mind. I invite that person to clarify his/her/its thinking.

The Secretary of State is commanded by Parliament in Section 3;HRA 1998 to read the ECA 1972 in its entirety and to then interpret any subordinate Act of Parliament or order of the Prime Minister in a way that does not infringe or interfere with Ms.Millers right to the peaceful enjoyment of her Constitutional Rights as guaranteed by A1P1.

The Secretary of State is commanded by Parliament in Section 3;HRA 1998 to read the ECA 1972 in its entirety and to then interpret any subordinate Act of Parliament or order of the Prime Minister in a way that does not infringe or interfere with Ms.Millers right to the peaceful enjoyment of her Constitutional Rights as guaranteed by A1P1.

sorry, but that is a peculiar amalgam of strange half truths.

Which parts of the passage do you consider true and which parts not true?

As an instance, you may have among your possessions a certain amount of money in a particular bank account. You are entitled in law to the peaceful enjoyment of those possessions free from interferance with your enjoyment by a third party. If I were to send you a 'phising' email in an attempt to gain access to the money in that bank account, in law, would I be interfering with your right to the peaceful enjoyment of your possessions?

Would the law consider that I had done anything 'wrong' by making the attempt?